Today discussing, much less debating, observable scientific and mathematical truths is not allowed by the political left, who seek to suppress critical thinking and science, if that science exposes objective truth that doesn't support a feminist/globalist/leftist agenda.
I taught high school chemistry for a few years. Of the hundreds of students I taught some were very smart, the overwhelming majority were average, and some were .. to be blunt ... dumb. There is no teacher, who's taught for any length of time, that can't identify the very bright and dumb from the overall pack of kids they teach. They also know the grades the kids earn don't always match the intelligence of the kids they teach. They all can tell you of students who were very bright, but got bad grades because they chose not to put in any effort, and they can tell of dumb students who chose to work hard and got good grades.
Although very few, there were some kids who basic chemistry was just beyond their intellectual ability. High school chemistry isn't that hard, but it does require critical thinking and application of abstract concepts. I can say that I had far more truly intellectually limited students, who shouldn't have been in a chemistry class in the first place, who were boys than girls. Probably 4:1 dumb boys to dumb girls.
I only taught high school chemistry for 3 years so only taught about 750 different students. There were a few, very few, truly extremely intelligent students, both boys and girls, but like the truly intellectually challenged not very many. To be honest there were more boys than girls that were at the top end of the intelligence spectrum, about 3:1.
No teacher, if honest, wouldn't tell you the same thing. The overwhelming majority of students are average, but at the extreme ends of dumb and super smart there are more boys than girls. This is a repeatedly observed and measured phenomenon that is not politically correct. It can and has been mathematically modeled and compared to evolutionary differences in other animals. Male mammals have far more variability in virtually every measured aspect than females.
This is a scientific fact but even discussing mathematical models of hypothetical sex differences is forbidden if the results of such models might be interpreted as conflicting with feminist orthodoxy. As a leftist friend of mine once said "Why bother reporting scientific data, even if it is right, if the results are not politically acceptable?"
Feminists in the past couple of weeks have successfully been able to bully an obscure math journal, and have a peer reviewed paper, that is unquestionably solid in it's research methodology and application of mathematics, to be retracted after it was published because the results might be interpreted to support the idea that there are differences between men and women that might result in less women at the top of some professions.
It seems to me that an appropriate response of the bullying that resulted in obscure math journals pulling the research is to get the paper as wide a circulation as possible, and create a Streisand effect.
Here is the abstract:
An elementary mathematical theory based on "selectivity" is proposed to address a question raised by Charles Darwin, namely, how one gender of a sexually dimorphic species might tend to evolve with greater variability than the other gender. Briefly, the theory says that if one sex is relatively selective then from one generation to the next, more variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with lesser variability; and conversely, if a sex is relatively non-selective, then less variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with greater variability. This theory makes no assumptions about differences in means between the sexes, nor does it presume that one sex is selective and the other non-selective. Two mathematical models are presented: a discrete-time one-step statistical model using normally distributed fitness values; and a continuous-time deterministic model using exponentially distributed fitness levels.Read the entire paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf
